It's a move comparable to the Texas Rangers losing Michael Young. They didn't gain anything of significant in return, but improved their win curvature by him simply being gone. Same with us. I'd do the trade again.

See, for me, addition by subtraction isn't good enough, especially considering we recieved - to date - nothing in return. Removing Ellis was excellent, but I can't say we won the trade just by virtue of the fact that Ellis for a Gatorade would have resulted in more team play for this roster.

To me, both teams lost this trade, despite both teams playing better, because the increase in both team's play has nothing to do with anything acquired via this trade.

Monta Ellis has regressed; shooting far worse as a Buck than a Warrior, continuing his turnoveritus in a different uniform, doing as much harm as good in Milwaukee. And Andrew Bogut has been on injury reserve 900% longer than he's been in the lineup (and that's just this season). Neither player has kicked their demons, neither has proven anybody wrong, neither has improved their team.

32 wrote:See, for me, addition by subtraction isn't good enough, especially considering we recieved - to date - nothing in return. Removing Ellis was excellent, but I can't say we won the trade just by virtue of the fact that Ellis for a Gatorade would have resulted in more team play for this roster.

To me, both teams lost this trade, despite both teams playing better, because the increase in both team's play has nothing to do with anything acquired via this trade.

Monta Ellis has regressed; shooting far worse as a Buck than a Warrior, continuing his turnoveritus in a different uniform, doing as much harm as good in Milwaukee. And Andrew Bogut has been on injury reserve 900% longer than he's been in the lineup (and that's just this season). Neither player has kicked their demons, neither has proven anybody wrong, neither has improved their team.

As such, I have to label this trade a lose-lose.

Bucks aren't better, they are just playing in arguably the worst conference of all time. Out of all the weak East years, this is probably the weakest of all time. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth seed would all currently be battling for an eight seed out west right now.

It's far too early to tell. At this point, we are in a rough stretch and could really use a boost to get back to our previous winning rate. That would be Bogut. If we were in the same position that we are now with Ellis being hurt nobody would be saying "just wait till we get Monta back."

32 wrote:See, for me, addition by subtraction isn't good enough, especially considering we recieved - to date - nothing in return. Removing Ellis was excellent, but I can't say we won the trade just by virtue of the fact that Ellis for a Gatorade would have resulted in more team play for this roster.

To me, both teams lost this trade, despite both teams playing better, because the increase in both team's play has nothing to do with anything acquired via this trade.

Monta Ellis has regressed; shooting far worse as a Buck than a Warrior, continuing his turnoveritus in a different uniform, doing as much harm as good in Milwaukee. And Andrew Bogut has been on injury reserve 900% longer than he's been in the lineup (and that's just this season). Neither player has kicked their demons, neither has proven anybody wrong, neither has improved their team.

As such, I have to label this trade a lose-lose.

Bucks aren't better, they are just playing in arguably the worst conference of all time. Out of all the weak East years, this is probably the weakest of all time. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth seed would all currently be battling for an eight seed out west right now.

Well, success is subjective. The East has been the (drastically) inferior league for over 20 years, so I don't discount their higher playoff seeding as a default because of their conference. The East has been weak for DECADES now. But improvement is improvement and the Bucks are playing better this year. 2 games above .500, compared to 4 games below it last year.

And I dunno, JREED. There's no guarantee that Bogut's even coming back this year.

I voted for "both teams lost", because I think that if we traded Monta for Sanders (for instance), we would be getting more value this season than with Bogut. Switch Sanders for any serviceable center in the league, and you still get more value than with Bogut. It's simple, if the guy isn't playing, you didn't get anything. And you can't look at the fact that Monta left made this trade good. We could have got a nice asset, another solid big, who would rotate with Ezeli, and probably give us some wins that we lost this season because we lacked another center.

32 wrote:See, for me, addition by subtraction isn't good enough, especially considering we recieved - to date - nothing in return. Removing Ellis was excellent, but I can't say we won the trade just by virtue of the fact that Ellis for a Gatorade would have resulted in more team play for this roster.

To me, both teams lost this trade, despite both teams playing better, because the increase in both team's play has nothing to do with anything acquired via this trade.

Monta Ellis has regressed; shooting far worse as a Buck than a Warrior, continuing his turnoveritus in a different uniform, doing as much harm as good in Milwaukee. And Andrew Bogut has been on injury reserve 900% longer than he's been in the lineup (and that's just this season). Neither player has kicked their demons, neither has proven anybody wrong, neither has improved their team.

As such, I have to label this trade a lose-lose.

Bucks aren't better, they are just playing in arguably the worst conference of all time. Out of all the weak East years, this is probably the weakest of all time. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth seed would all currently be battling for an eight seed out west right now.

Well, success is subjective. The East has been the (drastically) inferior league for over 20 years, so I don't discount their higher playoff seeding as a default because of their conference. The East has been weak for DECADES now. But improvement is improvement and the Bucks are playing better this year. 2 games above .500, compared to 4 games below it last year.

And I dunno, JREED. There's no guarantee that Bogut's even coming back this year.

They are certainly worse league wise statistically, but they are better East wise. There are more better teams than them this year, however, teams got better in the west as the East got much weaker. That would mainly be the Celtics decline due to age, Sixers losing Iggy to the Nuggets, and the Magic getting worse due to the loss of Dwight. I think it is fair to argue they are having more success due to a weaker conference, but they certainly aren't better than last year if you are just comparing to them the entirety of the league.

And I do believe in the concept of winning a trade by simply getting rid of Monta and having Bogut possibly play.

I would answer this in a different way: warriors lost, but bucks haven't won either, if modal logic allows for such a position.

With bucks they simply had the wrong mix of coach (coach who didn't like his palyers and made a starting lineup of 3 all defense no offense bigs with inconsitent shooters like ellis and jennings, new no-coach has at least inserted ilyasova back into lineup, if he regains his shooting stroke, bucks will be alright, unless they already a thinking trades - milwaukee is not about winning at any cost, it's about having alright team with not too much on the books, so, as far as i see it, they are doing just fine in that category) and players to evaluate how ellis and udoh performs. They have no coach or close to no coach now.

By common logic, without twists and such, warriors lost the trade badly, since they received a player who can't play and no one knows if he'll ever be able to play, so technically they got a more talented motivated biedrins - player with aggravated injuries that might be/evolve into being chronic and a player whom they did not want and had to take a huge load of **** (contract of jefferson and 30th pick to part with him). Now jefferson seems like a player warriors don't want, i'e' same as jackson. So yeah, they traded two palyers that can and do play, for two players that can't or don't play. simple math tells me there's nothing about winning there.

Of course, there are different maths, and maybe one dealing with imaginary numbers could be best to describe what transpired in this situation - while root of minus one (or a square that equals to - 1) sounds absurd, in equations it may do wonders to solve very intanglible (down to earth problems) problems.

Assume ellis was root of -1. Now the simple formula for operating with imaginary numbers is this: a+bi (where 'i' is imaginary unit, and the whole formula describes complex number), so we used ellis to extract/construct a bigger complex number - jefferson's salary, non playing bogut and losing two capable palyers (while getting only one in ezeli) - and the result would initially seem absurd and very grossly terrible - we have a root, lets say of minus 2, and in common sense it might look like a disaster - afterall +2 looks like much easier to comprehend than something only imaginable like roots of minus digits.

But by adding this weird number to an 'a', which let's say is our team, we somehow managed to solve a problem or two - I will quote wikipedia entry on what problems this helps to solve in physics - signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, cartography, and vibration analysis.Now let me analogize through it:

1. Signal processing - we have no need to deal with ellis off court antics and on court complexity with playing him and curry together.2. Control theory - it's sure easier to control unselfish players, mainly rookies and youngsters, adding have-beens into the same category.3. Electromagnetism - energy transferring easier among players.4. Fluid dynamics - team chemistry.5. Quantum mechanics - i don't think we solved anything there, rather we got ourselves a problem: microfractury of Bogut.6. Cartography - it's easier to locate our players since they hang out together, and no coach has to to go mississippi to talk to family of or ellis himself.7. Vibration analysis - well, having in mind that our coach is named Mark and he did do a shimmy (as well as steph) we got some vibrations going smoothly, to illustrate:

The Warriors chemistry definitely increased after the trade, there's no doubt about that. Ellis' feuds with Lee, Curry, and management as a whole were detrimental to the team's growth. But the dissection of the assets you detailed cannot be denied: we, essentially, flipped Ellis' bad contract for a worse one (Jefferson). And I've stated in other threads, the Udoh-becoming-Ezeli swap was essentially a wash. I love Ezeli's size, strength, and toughness... But compared to what Udoh provided, when he was here, he still has yet to measure up.

The fact that Bogut has contributed nothing prevents this trade from being a Warrior victory. If/when Bogut returns, we can easily call this trade a plus for Golden State. But as is stands, the trade is a wash, with both sides getting next to nothing.

Texas was able to replace a fourth of Josh Hamilton's production this off season? How? They got rid of Michael Young via trade. I count that trade as a win for them as much a win for us. I feel whenever a trade improves your win curvature/future it is obviously a good trade. I don't see a reason why we lost this trade other than we hypothetically may have gotten OJ Mayo (Who has severely regressed like I suggested he would) before he left for free agency and Hasheem Thabeet who is pretty terrible.

If the rumor was true, Ellis for Iggy, than I will say we chose the wrong trade, however, choosing the wrong trade doesn't make this trade a loss.

1 year later, Warriors won this trade in a landslide. If you're just looking at a talent for talent trade evaluation, the jury is still out on that because Bogut has hardly played. So 1 yr later, it's undetermined. But even if Bogut never steps foot on a court again, the Warriors won the trade. The trade wasn't only about talent for talent, it was multiple factors. Only the Bucks offer (with no upgrade in talent cuz Bogut was out for the year) enables a tank to get the #7 pick Harrion Barnes, enables Klay Thompson to get heavy minutes and develop, enables the trade to get #30 pick Ezeli, and enables us to unload Ellis on another team. Bucks offer was the best out there and the trade HAD to be made, so they win the trade. How much they win the trade is yet to be determined. Bogut playing and becoming a factor, and it'd be just ridiculous how great a move this was for the FO.

But the only thing that matters about this trade is in the W-L category. Basically, trading Monta Ellis for a bag of chips was a good move because of addition by subtraction. This so happened to be the best tasting bag of chips out there because of all of the surrounding factors (injured Bogut enabling tank, Bogut being a top 5 center, etc) . And it could pay off, as many trades in the past have, not in the 1 yr scope but in the following years.